Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran

[maximus]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...ran/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."

In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."

"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes. (Full story)

Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.

Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.

He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider.

"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.

Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.

Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.

The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there. (Full story)

"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites."

He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."

Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."

And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:

"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."

Emphasizing 'diplomatic initiatives'
Bartlett said the United States is working with its European allies to help persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons.

Asked if military action is an option should diplomacy fail, Bartlett said, "No president at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table."

But Bush "has shown that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are under way right now," he said.

Hersh said U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke an uprising by Iranians against the hard-line religious leaders who run the government. Similar arguments were made ahead of the invasion of Iraq, when administration officials predicted U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators.

And Hersh said administration officials have chosen not to include conflicting points of view in their deliberations -- such as predictions that any U.S. attack would provoke a wave of nationalism that would unite Iranians against the United States.

"As people say to me, when it comes to meetings about this issue, if you don't drink the Kool-Aid, you can't go to meetings," he said. "That isn't a message anybody wants to hear."

The plans are not limited to Iran, he said.

"The president assigned a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other special forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia," he wrote.

Under the secret plans, the war on terrorism would be led by the Pentagon, and the power of the CIA would be reduced, Hersh wrote in his article.

"It's sort of a great victory for Donald Rumsfeld, a bureaucratic victory," Hersh told CNN.

He said: "Since the summer of 2002, he's been advocating, 'Let me run this war, not the CIA. We can do it better. We'll send our boys in. We don't have to tell their local military commanders. We don't have to tell the ambassadors. We don't have to tell the CIA station chiefs in various countries. Let's go in and work with the bad guys and see what we can find out.'"

Hersh added that the administration has chipped away at the CIA's power and that newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss has overseen a purge of the old order.

"He's been committing sort-of ordered executions'" Hersh said. "He's been -- you know, people have been fired, they've been resigning."

The target of the housecleaning at the CIA, he said, has been intelligence analysts, some of whom are seen as "apostates -- as opposed to being true believers."

[Qwikshot]

I thought Syria was next.

[Franklinnoble]

George Bush has four years left without regard for re-election. I expect he'll pursue our enemies even more aggressively than ever.

Lots of people will hate him for it.

But, that said, I don't know if this Iran story holds much water.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If his information is accurate, Seymour Hersh should get to file his next story from behind bars, while awaiting trial for treason. What sort of fucking idiot reports that story and potentially endangers the lives of troops or operatives? And what sort of "management" allows him to do so?

Oh yeah, it's CNN and The New Yorker. Nevermind the question.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

George Bush has four years left without regard for re-election. I expect he'll pursue our enemies even more aggressively than ever.

LOL, OK. Let me know when U.S. forces capture OBL, and G.W. Bush actually does something constructive to deal with our serious and well-funded enemies in Saudi Arabia, and our nuclear-weapon-owning enemies in North Korea.

[jeff061]

I'm sure they have plans like this for several countries. Its called being ready. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.

[Arles]

As was the case before, Hersh has probably been used by the admin. My guess is this story was "leaked" to him to strike a little fear into Iran. He has a history for running irresponsible stories (from a standpoint of endangering US troops) so it makes sense for him to be the guy it gets leaked to. The same thing was done to him leading up to the Iraq initial strike (he posted a completely inaccurate "first strike plan" that probably included these same "people in government whose information has been reliable in the past").

You would think Hersh would get a clue at some point. Then again, he has probably gotten used to all the egg on his face, so why change now?

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I'm sure they have plans like this for several countries. Its called being ready. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Agreed. Planning is one thing, the rest is conjecture. I don't give a fig for his "guesses" on how things might play out.

[Bubba Wheels]

In 1979 Iran attacked and occupied our Embassy in Tehran. Anybody who knows anything about international law knows that the soil an embassy sits upon is considered soil from that home country. In effect, Iran invaded U.S. territory, which is an act of war. Point is, even though our hostages were eventually released when Reagan was elected President, I don't recall any apology or compensation from the Iranian government over this transgression. Technically, we could have been 'at war' with Iran since 1979. If that's the case, then all's fair in regards to actions taken against them.

[Yossarian]

If that's the case, then all's fair in regards to actions taken against them.

I wouldnt base 'alls fair' on a technicality from an act 25 years ago...

Thats the kind of technically correct logic that doesnt follow the INTENT of the law so to speak...

If you were going to move on the above action, 1979 was the year to do so..

[illinifan999]

blow em to kingdom come

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

In 1979 Iran attacked and occupied our Embassy in Tehran.

In 1979 Saddam Hussein was our valuable ally in the Middle East.

Prior to 1979 we illegally installed a ruler of Iran not wanted by the people.

What's your point, exactly?

[miked]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If his information is accurate, Seymour Hersh should get to file his next story from behind bars, while awaiting trial for treason. What sort of fucking idiot reports that story and potentially endangers the lives of troops or operatives? And what sort of "management" allows him to do so?

Oh yeah, it's CNN and The New Yorker. Nevermind the question.

Maybe it was the same people who gave away the identity of our CIA agents. Oh wait, that was Novak and some unidentified and unpursued people in the White House. Nevermind.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by miked

Maybe it was the same people who gave away the identity of our CIA agents. Oh wait, that was Novak and some unidentified and unpursued people in the White House. Nevermind.

You do realize there's a grand jury investigation going on as we speak to determine who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, right? That's hardly "unpursued".

Also, keep in mind in 1979 we had a gigantic wuss in the White House.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You do realize there's a grand jury investigation going on as we speak to determine who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, right? That's hardly "unpursued".

When it reaches the scope of Whitewater (which didn't compromise the lives of American agents overseas, by the way), let me know.

Also, keep in mind in 1979 we had a gigantic wuss in the White House.

My bad, it was 1983:

[maximus]

Pentagon blasts article alleging reconnaissance missions in Iran

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon Monday criticized an article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that says the United States has been carrying out reconnaissance missions in Iran to identify nuclear, chemical and missile sites for possible airstrikes as soon as this summer.
But the Pentagon's response did not specifically address Hersh's contention that the United States has been "conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran since at least last summer" to identify and isolate at least three dozen targets in Iran "that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids." (Full story)

In a written statement, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita said Iran's "apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organizations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment than Seymour Hersh provides in The New Yorker article titled 'The Coming Wars.' "

"Mr. Hersh's article is so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed."

The statement cited Hersh's description of a post-election meeting between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and said it "did not happen."

In the article, Hersh said the meeting was described to him by "a former high-level intelligence official."

The statement also disputed Hersh's assertion that "Rumsfeld and two of his key deputies, Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and Army Lt. Gen. William G. [Jerry] Boykin, will be part of the chain of command for the new commando operations."

"The only civilians in the chain of command are the president and the secretary of defense, despite Mr. Hersh's confident assertion that the chain of command now includes two department policy officials. His assertion is outrageous, and constitutionally specious."

Hersh also said Doug Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, oversaw Defense Department civilians who "have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons and missile targets inside Iran."

But DiRita said ties between Feith and Israel "do not exist."

The Defense spokesman added, "Mr. Hersh is building on links created by the soft bigotry of some conspiracy theorists. This reflects poorly on Mr. Hersh and the 'New Yorker.' "

Hersh described DiRita's criticisms as "quibbling."

Hersh said his information came from "very, very senior" sources.

"There are serious people on the inside who don't like what's going on and don't have a way to communicate that," he said. "The real issue is: What are we doing? Who's in control here? The Pentagon? The White House? That's the real issue."

Senior officials told CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr that there is currently no immediate planning for a strike against Iran.

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and intended solely for peaceful purposes. Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

He said his information came from "inside" sources who divulged it in hopes that publicity about the alleged plans would force the administration to reconsider them.

"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition."

In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."

"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.

The United States is working with its European allies to help persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, Bartlett said.

Asked if military action is an option should diplomacy fail, Bartlett said, "No president at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table."

That the Pentagon would have contingency plans for an attack on Iran is "not unusual," former Secretary of Defense William Cohen told CNN Monday.

"The issue really is whether or not this information being gathered is to help put pressure on the Europeans to bring more pressure on Iran to cease and desist from its nuclear ambitions," Cohen said. "Or whether or not that decision's already been made and they're actually planning a military operation."

Cohen noted that Hersh's article has not been "categorically denied" by the Bush administration.

"So there seems to be some confirmation that there is a fairly serious effort under way to gather this kind of information for potential military operations," he said.

[Flasch186]

Hersh has a good track record so far...and the DOD isnt denying the missions.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Hersh has a good track record so far...and the DOD isnt denying the missions.

First off regarding the primary assertion of the article. I'd be a bit upset if we weren't planning contingency strikes against likely targets in Iran. The Europeans are dealing with them offering the carrot, and we are the stick. The world, well the western world, doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, and Millitary intervention hasn't been pulled from the table as a means to achieve that goal. We should be picking targets, and developing plans to strike meaning targets.


As to the secondary assertions of the article, that the neo-cons are playing fast and loose again, and as to Flash's observations that Hersh has a good track record so far. Well I'd say he was fairly far off track with his article following up the Abu Gharaib scandal. Made famous here in the "Rumsfeld lied" thread.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As to the secondary assertions of the article, that the neo-cons are playing fast and loose again, and as to Flash's observations that Hersh has a good track record so far. Well I'd say he was fairly far off track with his article following up the Abu Gharaib scandal. Made famous here in the "Rumsfeld lied" thread.

I thought that it was he and the New Yorker that broke the Abu story, which turned out to be true. no?

[sachmo71]

I'm sorry, but it sounds like there is one fact in his article, and the rest is pure speculation. Time will tell if he was correct. His past hits or misses are irrelevant to this article.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If his information is accurate, Seymour Hersh should get to file his next story from behind bars, while awaiting trial for treason. What sort of fucking idiot reports that story and potentially endangers the lives of troops or operatives? And what sort of "management" allows him to do so?

Oh yeah, it's CNN and The New Yorker. Nevermind the question.

It's called the First Amendment. I suggest you get used to it.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I thought that it was he and the New Yorker that broke the Abu story, which turned out to be true. no?

Well IIRC, and I haven't gone to verify this, he broke the Abu Gharaib story, and then some time later he followed up with a story where he claimed that Rumsfeld had essentially ordered the abuse. It is the second story, where Hersh himself played fast and loose, filling in large holes in his story with his own suppositions. He connected dots where it has now been shown the dots do not connect. Hersh has exhibited a predisposition to paint the Bush administration in a poor light, and the picture painted in his latest article is far more damning than the actual factual content it contains.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The world, well the western world , doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons,

I do wish more people made this distinction. approximately 80% of the world is the "non-western" world.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The world, well the western world, doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Well, there are a few people who don't think nuclear weapons proliferation is such a bad idea. Some nuclear deterrence theorists actually claim that nuclear weapons make the world safer, since states are unlikely to go to war with states that have nuclear weapons. US-USSR is the prime example of nuclear armed competitors never going to war. More currently, India and Pakistan both having nukes seems to have compelled those two sides to resolve their crises (there have been a couple since Pakistan started nuclear testing) before escalating to war...

Many of the world's current policy-makers were schooled in this theory and that seems to show in their de facto actions when it comes to nuclear proliferation. Notice that nobody really took Pakistan, Israel, or South Africa to task after they acquired nukes--just a lot of resignation on the part of the nuclear club. Also, it's interesting that the North Koreans aren't being pushed as much as they could be with their nuclear designs.

[Glengoyne]

Hey I tend to agree with you to an extent Klinglerware. Mutual Assured Destruction worked wornders with the US and the USSR. But the Western world fears some crazed Ayatollah deciding that he wants to wipe a bunch of infadels or say the city of Tel Aviv off the face of the earth, and determining that the population of Tehran wouldn't mind paying the ultimate price for such an attack.

MAD works when all of the parties can be expected to act rationally. The West fears leaders who might ascribe to the same zeal that accounts for suicide bombers, well they fear them having nuclear capabilities.

[Crapshoot]

Klingerware raises an interesting point, that Huntington touched upon in the clash of Civilizations- the fear of North Korean Nukes increases exponentially the further away you get from Korea, reaching its Creschendo in the US. South Korea doesnt view it as a big threat, understanding that in the long run, they will be "Korean " nukes, and a deterrent to American ambitions. In the same book, Indian and asian officials are often quoted as citing Nukes as the great equalizer- they know that the US will not attack if they have a nuclear capability. Essentialy, Nuclear Weapons are viewed as a defensive tool against the US by a large chunk of the world.

[Klinglerware]

Good point about the Indian view of nuclear weapons. I remember the quote from an Indian foreign or defense ministry official on their main lesson learned from Gulf War I -- "Don't challenge the United States if you don't have nuclear weapons". Crapshoot, do you know if that quote is in the Huntington book (read the article, but not the book)?

Glengoyne, I agree with you in so far that MAD only works if both sides behave rationally. The terrorist groups they sponsor may not behave rationally, but the Iranian foreign policy leadership does. As far as the Iranians go--I think their foreign policy decision-making is essentially realist. Yes, they do sponsor terrorist groups but they wisely avoid sponsoring groups that attack Western European and American targets. The Iranians have a strong economic relationship with Western Europe, and the Iranians know that they would be foolish to jeopardize that relationship. Same deal with giving terrorists nukes--that could blow up in the Iranian's faces (quite literally) and I would think the Iranians would think really hard before they even considered doing something like that.

[Crapshoot]

Klingerware, it is. Its an oft cited Indian policy dictum as it is- although China is the primary focus right now of most Indian efforts. Pick up the book- one of the best books I've ever read, and although dated, still fairly observant about trends.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I thought that it was he and the New Yorker that broke the Abu story, which turned out to be true. no?

The story was released months before by the DoD, and they were already starting investigations/Graner's hearing. That's where/why the pictures came out (leaked by someone connected with the Graner trial - perhaps his lawyer who worked with Hersh during the Vietnam War or perhaps family members upset at Rumsfeld/the DoD) and both 60 Minutes/The New Yorker released works on it shortly thereafter. Since there were now pictures, it became a much, much bigger story, but the facts were released by the military long before Hersh published his article.

In this case, I'd lean towards the manipulation angle, where the Administration wants to threaten the Mullahs but can't come out and say so. So they leak a story that can't be verified and Bush gives comments like "I refuse to rule out the use of force."

One last point, accepting at face value the claim that American SF units have made excursions into Iran with Pakistani help. I don't really know anything about the locations of Iranian nuclear facilities, but I'd guess they aren't too close to the borders. The part of Pakistan that borders Iran is South Waziristan, the tribal areas where the Taliban/al-Qaeda/Lashkar-e-Taiba are strongest and are occasionally engaged with the Pakistani military. That corner of Afghanistan is also the closest thing to a support base for Taliban remnants. And there have been reports of a number of terrorist figures in SE Iran. So even if the story is true, surveillance of nuclear capabilities may not be the mission.

[JPhillips]

It was brought to my attention that the really revealing part of this article is that the Pentagon wants to take covert ops from the CIA. The relevant thinking, so I've read, is that the laws passed in the 70s apply strictly to the CIA and covert ops under the Pentagon's command would have a much freer hand.

I think there is a case to be made for revising covert ops restrictions, but I hate that this admin is doing it secretly. Shouldn't a revision of laws applying to covert actions be debated?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think there is a case to be made for revising covert ops restrictions, but I hate that this admin is doing it secretly. Shouldn't a revision of laws applying to covert actions be debated?

Ummm....no? Let's announce to the world how our covert actions have changed. That's not smart. As long as the Congressional Oversight committee is in the loop, I'm willing to have our foreign covert policies to change (not domestic, spy on the citizenry stuff, though).

-Anxiety

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

(not domestic, spy on the citizenry stuff, though).

-Anxiety

love that Patriot Act?

[JPhillips]

I'm not talking about specific operations. These laws apply to everything done by the CIA. If we are going to subvert the law anyway we should be willing to openly change the law.

This admin has set a very dangerous precedent of almost imperial power. If they don't like the laws they just ignore them. If these laws don't work they shouldn't be afraid of asking for them to be changed.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It was brought to my attention that the really revealing part of this article is that the Pentagon wants to take covert ops from the CIA.

This has been known for a while. From what I've heard, there was even somewhat of a turf batle over it regarding Afghanistan (which the CIA more or less won) that spurred Rumsfeld to try and begin laying the foundation for a Covert Ops group directly under his command. How much of this is true is uncertain, since anything regarding Covert Ops has a lot of uncertainty and mystery. Just ask people to name some recent successes from the CIA. But on the point of the Pentagon trying to blur the line or take over Covert Ops from the CIA it has been known for years.